‘Balancing Between Trust and Progress’

Hamit Karakus, Privacy and Ethics portfolio holder at the police, and Vincent Böhre, director of the Privacy First foundation, discuss when the use of data is proportional. Where are the limits and how can we protect personal data so that legislation remains enforceable and innovation gets more room?

‘I notice that there is often talk of a contradiction between privacy and security,’ Böhre begins. ‘But in my opinion, there is none at all. On the contrary, I believe privacy and security go hand in hand. If we look at the right to physical integrity, which also falls under privacy, the worst privacy violations in my view are not the cookies on your computer. Burglaries, assaults, threats, and kidnappings have a much greater impact on someones life. Sometimes an intrusion into someones privacy is also necessary to protect a larger group of people. From Privacy First’s perspective, we are therefore absolutely in favor of the best possible investigation and prosecution.’

‘But,’ he adds immediately, ‘with the best possible privacy safeguards. And I think that is exactly the challenge. That we find the balance between protection and feasibility and between trust and progress.’

Balancing interests

Karakus: ‘It’s great that you approach privacy this way. It is also the primary task of the police to tackle crimes and protect safety in our society. At the same time, I think no one can be in favor of unnecessarily violating someone’s privacy. Take camera footage and personal data, which are entrusted to us. We handle them carefully. I always compare the use of data with the use of our means of force. How and when we use those means is determined by a framework of criteria.’

‘Society is always an important party in our balancing of interests. That sometimes causes friction. In the case of privacy, on the one hand, people want us to protect and respect individuals’ privacy, and on the other hand, we are expected to track down criminals and prevent serious incidents.’

With power comes responsibility

‘This does not mean that we should not ask ourselves in advance whether the use of certain data is justified given the goal we want to achieve and that we properly account for the use of data afterwards,’ Karakus emphasizes. ‘Just as we do with the use of means of force. For example, with an independent committee that assesses whether the use of, for example, camera surveillance or facial recognition has been proportional. If we can clearly explain in which situation we use which data, more trust in the rule of law arises.’

Böhre: ‘I agree with that, but what I would like to warn the police about is that the exception does not become the rule. An organization with many powers must be subject to strict scrutiny. In other words: with power comes responsibility. If you do that demonstrably, you indeed maintain the support and trust of society.’

Tension field

‘I also hope that the police continue to keep an eye on the tension field,’ Böhre continues. ‘Collecting, using, and storing data can serve safety but also conflicts with fundamental freedoms of people. A solution I would recommend to the entire government is much more application of privacy by design. Privacy and data protection are integrated from the design phase into products, services, and systems. With camera surveillance, you can think of privacy-enhancing techniques, such as automatically anonymizing passersby by blurring their faces. This requires a culture in which legal protection is taken extremely seriously.’

Innovation and experiment

‘That intention is certainly there,’ Karakus emphasizes. ‘Still, I expect that we will not always be able to fully keep up with all technological developments. Given the complexity, we should ensure that privacy projects continue to be prioritized. Another sensitive point is the legislation. We know that much is technologically possible; the question is also how we will organize the implementation of new products, services, and systems. Is there enough room for innovation and experimentation within current laws and regulations?’

Digital sovereignty

Böhre acknowledges the slow and obstructive effect of privacy legislation. ‘Still, the police should remain closely involved in current developments with a view to crime fighting. A topical issue that, in my opinion, deserves much more attention is digital sovereignty. For an organization like the police, it seems important to maintain control over own data, digital infrastructure, and technology, independent of foreign influences. As police, it seems important to decide where data is stored, who has access, and which legislation applies.’

Reflection

‘It is very valuable if organizations like Privacy First hold up a mirror to us in these important developments,’ Karakus emphasizes. ‘We need that sharp outside perspective. Of course, we cannot agree on everything and our opinions sometimes clash, but cooperation and partnership strengthen us in our craftsmanship.’

The mutual relationship has been good for years. ‘Privacy First annually conducts inspiring and educational conversations with the police leadership,’ says Böhre. ‘That does not mean there are not still many wishes for the future. As an independent foundation, Privacy First will always strive for as much democratic control as possible over the police’s data power.’